Pages

Who’s to blame for the savagery seen in Manchester and London?

Today, 16 years since 9/11 and with attacks now occurring across Europe and multiple wars in the Middle East and north Africa region, it is time for the west to reflect far more deeply on these matters. To date shortsighted policy responses like Prevent have not been evidence-based. Responses to the immediate problem of terrorist acts need to be much more intelligent and informed.At the same time, simplistic representations of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism versus the west are highly inaccurate. It is now clear that the initial US response to 9/11 sought to exploit this event in order to initiate operations against countries unconnected to al-Qaida. The Chilcot report cited a British embassy telegramsaying that “regime-change hawks” in Washington were arguing that a coalition against international terrorism “could be used to clear up other problems in the region”. The most notable outcome of this exploitation was the catastrophic Iraq invasion.Recently, highly destructive conflicts in Syria and Libya demonstrate powerful inconsistencies regarding official claims to be fighting terrorism. In Syria, the priority of toppling Assad has involved support, intentional or unintentional, for extremist groups and allies, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are implicated in supporting Islamic State and other extremist groups. Indeed, the UK’s relationship with Saudi Arabia and support in that country for “Islamist jihadists” has become a UK election issue. Regarding Libya, the Manchester attack triggered debate over the relationship between the alleged attacker, British security services, and the movement of extremists between the UK and Libya.Responding to the dreadful events in London and Manchester requires rational responses and critical reflection upon the way in which western governments are embroiled in exploiting and facilitating terrorism. If we are to end the cycle of violence, it is time to end western involvement in terrorism.